tv [untitled] May 16, 2012 5:30pm-6:00pm PDT
outside of our house is enough to support two. now, that box is awesome two large. this would be further exacerbating the sound issues. two of those pieces not appropriat should argued that the necessity standard has not been complied with. finally, i believe this fails to meet the compatibility standard. the planning department made a decision for two boxes. two on another avenue, and that it is appropriate.
this house further their argument that the equipment is compatible with the equipment already found on our block. nine equipment attachments, you need to include the equipment attachments that are already put up on the block. please ask them to provide evidence for their statement. i am happy to walk the board through. nextg's equipment has visual blight that is upsetting. it is not compatible with our block, and we strongly believe there are a better site locations. thank you very much. vice president hwang: did you want to go on through and walk as through the pictures?
>> this is the corner of lake and 27th ave. nextg has often reference to this box. that is a busy street than our block. this is a visual of the next utility pole down the block. this is the next utility pole down the block. the equipment here has been added by nextg. there are two small brown boxes here, and then there is a transformer.
this is what that poll looks like -- pole looked like. there was no major equipment on that pole. this is the next pole down. again, no major equipment on it. this is the next one down, and a major equipment. and this is the finer utility pole -- finally -- final you to people. no major equipment. this is the equipment at 161.
the permit was properly issued by the department of public works, and as i outlined in the written comments, there is a number of steps that it must go to. this is under article 25. both crown and the department's public works learned have to iron out some of the kinks in the process through this. this was a necessity statement that was submitted by crown and relied upon by the director of public works when the permit was appeal to the director as part of the new article 25 process. the equipment went to the planning department multiple times. december 9, it was for all of
the equipment, including the battery backup unit as well as the wireless equipment, and the zoning department found there would be no significant impact. after the protest, before the director issued his decision, it went back to the planning department for evaluation of the view, because there is language regarding interference of the view, and as you saw in the photographs presented by the appellant, there is a number of utility poles and various types of equipment on this location, or on this block, and so as a result, the planning department determined once again that this equipment fits with the environment that we have on the street. and then as will be discussed in a little more detail, this also
went to the department of public health, and in that situation, we had originally presented tests. it was not accurate. i do not know who the appellant spoke to at the equipment manufacturer, but we know that it is different between the two models, and so we saw the error. it was already rejected from the department of public works because the tests are site specific, and so the department public-works determined that everything would have to be site specific and to issue the permit from the processes outlined in article 25. so the appellant raised two issues that i wanted to go into in more detail, because both crown and the department of public works, which john will speak about, put a lot of energy into trying to reduce the impact of this location without reducing the functionality, but there were some sacrifices to
functionality as well. the largest sacrifice to functionality is with the battery backup unit. as you saw in the first photograph presented by the appellant, of view there is a comcast battery backup unit on the corner of lake street. the dimensions of that, the battery backup unit, the same kind of functionality, its dimensions, i believe it is around 38 by 36 by 16 inches, and that provides eight hours of functionality. we initially had 36 inches -- and the planning department requested that we remove or reduce it. we give them a proposal of placing everything on one poll. do you want it all on one or on different ones? they said they wanted the battery backup unit to be for
one hour, so we reduced it in size. we did lose some functionality. we also considered the impact, the visual impact from the bedroom window. this was with coverage in mind. because it was above the extension to maintain that clearance, we measured it again so that it did not go over but was rather behind the full extension, the antenna being lowered. there is a slight loss in
functionality. there was also something in the brief regarding the size of the equipment. this is a tier 3 installation that was approved by the board on february 8, 2012. it has the same standard of review under article 25 because it is near and architecturally significant building, and under the old regime, -- we had a problem with this installation back in 2011 because it was misidentified. it got a different level of review, whereas now, whether it is significant, a good use street, or an excellent use street, or in a residential or
commercial neighborhood, the same standard from the planning department, but this one was one that was also in that area. so thank you, and if you have any other questions, i am happy to answer that. this is on laguna. president garcia: did you have a question? proceed. commissioner fung: you made then require another box, but i did not see any analysis other than that. >> well, there were two aspects, because originally, it was not clear whether battery backup units would be considered under
article 25 because battery backup units are not considered under article 25 when they are related to different types of functionality, so our 23 requirement is for the wireless equipment, we have a shroud that will have two boxes that will allow for greater functionality, but also, when you include the battery backup unit, that is also a tier 3, because that is wider. this is also functionality. emergency power and having another box or two, either one. president garcia: of a couple of things. the appellant mention something about the equipment in place. overturning the permit. i was under the impression that that was something that was allowed by dpw.
>> no, it was allowed under the court of appeals. this is why we went through the new permanent record, because under one section, there was a delay of about eight months before any permits were processed, just because it was going through. president garcia: it seems that the neighborhood was bearing the burden on a lot of this equipment. this seems to the area being served. >> that is an excellent question. these are actually not treated the same. they are not in the public right of way. they are considered private property, and as a communications company, this is essentially an easement, slightly different under law.
but we do not have easements, private easements in the alleyway. president garcia: and my last question for now, and i have read a lot, so forgive me for not being able to tell you where i read it, but that it would face the streets, pretty clear that the box would be facing the residences. >> yes. that is one of the things that we would work with dpw to do afterwards if they wanted us to flip the box so that it pointed out towards the street. we would do that, as well. president garcia: thank you. commissioner hillis: he talked about the nine pieces of equipment. how many on the street now, and
how many do you add 3 this permit? >> 9. in addition. which do not include my own, because what is being missed is whether it is called major equipment or minor equipment. there is a lot of minor equipment, so the comcast battery backup on the corner, you have the battery backup boxes, and then you have the p.g. in the meter, and then something that a lot of people do not notice, under the federal telecommunications act and state law, there is a terminal, and i am not saying that it is the tigert ebidta, but this is approximately 10 inches, and when you think about your landline connection, it is where it plugs into the telephone landline, so those are also on this. commissioner hillis: so they
are smaller >> yes, but if they were, they would be tier 3. commissioner hillis: why did you choose this street, which is a quiet residential street that we are adding a lot of equipment to? >> this area has a very poor coverage, and this was presented at one of the hearings last year. the grain is what is covered by this one antenna. -- the green is what is covered by this one antenna. we are trying to cover this entire area, and we do run out of the infrastructure, under article 25, you cannot place a new ploe in the public right-of- way, -- a new pole in the public
right of way. this is entirely obscured. there are others that did not met any type of foliage around them, and they were rejected as alternates. so coverage and screening or the two things that went into picking this location. and there is no other coverage for this area. we had some vandalism, and those were not functional for several hours, and there was absolutely no coverage. some areas have overlap. sometimes our cell phones do not work as well as other times, but this is so there is no gap.
if there is no more questions, thank you again. director goldstein: thank you. mr. kwong? >> departed of public works. there are three items as to why the department approval should be overturned. the three that he stated, and our response was, number one, that it does not meet the public requirement. i have in front of me, i wanted to show the board, a memo from the health department on july 8, 2011, which was within one of the packages.
one of it is stated as a condition of approval from the health department that any equipment, it must be turned on with full power. this is a condition of approval, which the department is required to enforce. at the completion of this facility, it must be tested. the conditions cannot be satisfied, there for the permit becomes invalid. we would have to revoke it at that point. conditional approval, like many of the building permits have conditional approval from planning that must be satisfied before being completed. the second point from the appellant was that it does not meet the tier 3 necessity. i believe textg's
representative has demonstrated there is a necessity. one thing was related to a battery powered back up. it is the department's position, when we discussed it with the attorney to, that the battery back up is part of any wireless the lifting, permitting requirements. anything that is necessary for this wireless permit, it must be shown and identified. finally, the comment was that the wireless permit does not meet the 23 evaluation from planning. again, as stated by others, planning had made tentative approval of this facility back in august 2011. this was provided in an exhibit from nextg networks, and provided by the appellant, mr.
cooper, planning was able to get additional pictures from mr. cooper's residence, to make an additional determination. their determination is stated such that there are existing utility poles as part of the environment, and this additional does not significantly impact the view specifically, so planning has evaluated it and determined that there is no additional requirement based upon the facilities and the re-evaluation traditional pictures from mr. cooper's residence. the department believes we did not air, and we are here to answer any questions that you may have. commissioner fung: the test that
is going to be at the ground level after installation is based on the one unit that is going in. what happens if a second unit is installed? >> what happens is the facility will be installed and tested at full power. part of the requirement imposed by the health department is that there will be continuous -- there will be inspections every two years afterwards on this facility to make sure that if there is equipment degradation of the sound requirements, that is maintained at 45 db's or below, and it clearly states that any resident who makes a request can have this to verify that it satisfies the requirements. commissioner fung: the permit
allows them to install the second unit at any time? >> if they choose to do so. at that point, again, it would still go through a review process from health and planning. president garcia: mr. kwong, in his papers, the appellant, mr. cooper, raised the issue, or maybe it was a neighbor, but whenever, in had to do with the fact that this neighborhood, as i am sure most neighborhoods would be desirous to have an underground wiring, for the wires in their neighborhood. the fact that this equipment on these polls, is that in any way prejudice the ability? >> absolutely -- actually not. as was stated, they are a utility company. it is subject to all regulations pertaining to
undergrounding, then they must remove it and have the undergrounded. president garcia: could it be said that this is a great disadvantage, and even if the neighborhood is willing to raise the money, but we cannot let you because there is a necessity for this equipment, and we would have nowhere else to put it? >> there would be no bearing in determination by the city on what districts should be undergrounded. that is correct. president garcia: thank you. ?
president garcia: just two people? three people? speak now or forever hold your peace. tw minutes. >> hi, my name is -- i live on 27th avenue between late and el camino del mar. this is a photograph of our street. you have heard a lot about the boxes and the antennas and them you, but nobody has spoken about the wires that go across the street that are involved in these installations. this is an idea of the view and of the snarl of wires. i take great exception with them with the idea that this is compatible with the other equipment on our street. there seems to be some confusion, but i want to make it clear that the nextg equipment
is the largest on the block. our street had a supposedly protected view. prior to their installation, the most substantial equipment on the block was the blocks on the pole, but it is mounted towards lake street and does not feel like it is part of 27th ave. it is also my understanding that all of the permits approved since the legislation, ours is the only one on a street with a protective view. one more. [bell] may i finish? in 2010, the install 10 antennas. there are 13 to 14 antennas within three blocks and not a single wireless antenna mounted
on a pole in that area. on 33rd, there is an antenna within two blocks. on another, within three blocks. on other streets, including 27th and 24, there are antenna's within one block. 25th avenue, there is another, and lincoln boulevard, there is another. lastly, i would just like to ask that you could confirm with someone other than nextg about the poles not being considered the regular right of way. thank you. vice president hwang: is that map with the boxes, the last photograph you put up, is that in the packet? >> no. vice president hwang: could you
put it back up, please? and could you point to where 27th avenue is? and that is which one? update. -- ok. the other visual that you put up for us, the wires, are those wires, to what extent are they actually connected to the boxes that nextg put up? >> there was something on the street that did not exist before this. honestly, i look at these and do not know what connects to what. i think you know what i mean when you look at the streets in san francisco. i have one more, which is an image of how close the alleyway, the poles are to this site. vice president hwang: